Koop: Our Society Should Be Smoke-free By The Year 2000

March 23, 1986|By Laura Ost of the Sentinel Staff

The Orlando Sentinel: You say you want a smoke-free environment by the year 2000. Does that mean no smoking at all?

C. Everett Koop: I asked for a smoke-free society, and that's very important because society comes from a root word that has to do with companionship. We are not a proscriptive society: We will never ban smoking at a federal level. But I do believe that before the end of the century the smoker will not smoke in the presence of the non-smoker without having his permission. As far as I'm concerned, that is a smoke-free society.

Q: What evidence is there that the American people want a smoke-free society?

A: Oh, lots of evidence. Eighty-six percent of smokers want to quit and have tried. They recognize that they are addicted to nicotine. There's no doubt they've all recognized the health dangers, especially lung cancer, that they are concerned about sudden death from heart disease and that they would like to quit if it weren't for their addiction.

Q: How far should the government go in trying to combat smoking?

A: The government is doing all it can do in the way of education in the health department. What I have said repeatedly is that I will sit down any time, anyplace with representatives of agriculture, labor and commerce and try to find alternative occupations for the people who eventually will be hurt by the reduction of smoking. That includes tobacco farmers, those who transport it, those who distribute it and those who retail it.

Q: Are you trying to put the tobacco companies out of business?

A: That's not my goal. If they went out of business it wouldn't bother me a bit, and in case it bothers you, don't let it: They are so diversified that they would hardly notice what happened to tobacco.

Q: Do we need more studies on the effects of smoking?

A: No. Since 1964, when the first surgeon general's report was released, there have been in excess of 50,000 scientific articles -- in every language that publishes scientific journals -- that there is a relationship between hazards to health and smoking.

Q: But tobacco companies claim there is no proof that smoking causes cancer.

A: I know they do. And I don't think anybody believes them. Even if I were selling cigarettes, I would have more sense and more integrity than to say that, because it's so obvious that it's untrue.

Q: Should the government be doing anything to help those people who are addicted to smoking?

A: That's very difficult. You can't force somebody to do something if he's not going to cooperate with you. What we can do is to make available by education the various pathways that people take to quit.

It might be worth saying just a few words about that. It doesn't matter to me whether you use acupuncture, hypnosis, group psychology or see your own doctor. If you want to quit smoking, you have to have in your own mind a self- rewarding goal that makes it worthwhile to go through the withdrawal symptoms. Then you use whatever system you choose as a crutch to get you through that time. We know that the most effective thing that can be done is for a smoker's personal physician to sit down, look him in the eye, point a finger at him and say, ''You have to stop smoking because it's killing you.''

Q: Should the price of cigarettes be higher to deter smoking?

A: The studies show that for the people we're most concerned about -- mainly new smokers, teen-agers -- for every rise of even 2 cents a pack of cigarettes, teen-agers quit. It doesn't affect older people whose economy can take this in, but when a younger person sees the price of cigarettes going up, he has to refigure what he can use and buy. So with those facts in mind, the higher the price of cigarettes the better it is for the health of the people. Q: Some might say that your campaign is an example of the government meddling in private lives or as an attempt to revive prohibition. Is it?

A: No. I am mandated by Congress to report annually on the effects of smoking on health. That I do. But we're not only trying to influence the smoker for his own benefit. The smoker costs the people of this country probably about $60 billion a year. That makes it not just a health problem but a problem of economics. We meddle in all sorts of things that are good for people. We insist that children be immunized before they go to school, and we don't have anybody except an occasional fanatic refuse, because they know it's good. Even the smoker knows that the effort of the government is a good effort for him.

Q: What should private citizens and private companies be doing to help achieve a smoke-free society?